FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Tooltechnic Systems (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 432
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v TOOLTECHNIC SYSTEMS (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 090 458 576)
QUD 30 OF 2007KIEFEL J
21 MARCH 2007
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QUD 30 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
ApplicantAND:
TOOLTECHNIC SYSTEMS (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 090 458 576)
Respondent
JUDGE:
KIEFEL J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 MARCH 2007
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
1.The respondent has given an undertaking to the applicant pursuant to section 87B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in the terms of annexure A.
2.The respondent’s managing director, Holger Schulz, has given an undertaking to the applicant pursuant to section 87B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in the terms of annexure B.
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
3.The respondent engaged in the practice of resale price maintenance in contravention of section 48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in or about November or December 2001 by attempting to induce Haltipi Pty Ltd trading as Power Tool Services (Power Tool Services) not to sell power tools supplied by the respondent and known by the brand ‘Festo’ or ‘Festool’ (Festool Products) at a price less than that specified by the respondent in its annual price list.
4.The respondent engaged in the practice of resale price maintenance in contravention of section 48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in or about May 2002 by attempting to induce Power Tool Services not to sell Festool Products at a price less than that specified by the respondent in its annual price list.
5.The respondent engaged in the practice of resale price maintenance in contravention of section 48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in or about May 2002 by attempting to induce Tradetools Direct Pty Ltd not to sell Festool Products at a price less than that specified by the respondent in its annual price list.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
6.Pursuant to section 76 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), the respondent pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty of $125,000 within 28 days of the date of this order.
THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:
7.Pursuant to section 80 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), the respondent be restrained, for a period of 3 years from the date of this order from, by itself, its servants, agents or otherwise howsoever, in its wholesale supply or potential supply of Festool Products to retailers of Festool Products (Festool Retailers), making statements to Festool Retailers or prospective Festool Retailers to the effect that:
(a)they cannot sell Festool Products at a price less than that specified by the respondent or on behalf of the respondent;
(b)they cannot sell Festool Products at a price less than the ‘recommended trade price’ specified from time to time in the respondent’s annual price list;
(c)they are not permitted to discount Festool Products;
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Tooltechnic... and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] FCA 432
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether Tooltechnic Systems had engaged in conduct that constituted price maintenance, which is prohibited under section 45 of the Trade Practices Act. The Court had to assess the statements made by Tooltechnic Systems to its retail customers regarding the prices at which they could sell Festool Products. The ACCC argued that these statements amounted to price maintenance, while Tooltechnic Systems contended that they were merely guidelines and did not prevent the retailers from setting their own prices.
The Court found that Tooltechnic Systems had indeed engaged in price maintenance by making statements to its retail customers that effectively restricted their ability to set their own prices for Festool Products. The Court determined that the statements constituted an agreement, arrangement, or understanding that prevented the retailers from selling below specified prices. As a result, the Court held that Tooltechnic Systems had contravened section 45 of the Trade Practices Act. In addition to imposing a pecuniary penalty, the Court issued an order prohibiting Tooltechnic Systems from making similar statements to its retail customers for a period of three years. The Court also ordered Tooltechnic Systems to pay the ACCC’s costs of the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
6. Pursuant to section 76 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), the respondent pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty of $125,000 within 28 days of the date of this order.
THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:
7. Pursuant to section 80 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), the respondent be restrained, for a period of 3 years from the date of this order from, by itself, its servants, agents or otherwise howsoever, in its wholesale supply or potential supply of Festool Products to retailers of Festool Products (Festool Retailers), making statements to Festool Retailers or prospective Festool Retailers to the effect that:
(a) they cannot sell Festool Products at a price less than that specified by the respondent or on behalf of the respondent;
(b) they cannot sell Festool Products at a price less than the ‘recommended trade price’ specified from time to time in the respondent’s annual price list;
(c) they are not permitted to discount Festool Products;
(d) they will or may be treated less favourably by the respondent if they sell Festool Products at a price less than that specified by the respondent or on behalf of the respondent; or
(e) they will or may lose some or all of their wholesale discount if they sell Festool Products at a price less than that specified by the respondent or on behalf of the respondent.
8. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding fixed in the amount of $25,000 within 28 days of the date of this order.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: KIEFEL J
Full text does not contain this section.